When an idea earns acclaim as one of the 10 greatest achievements of its time and is subsequently endorsed by legions of professionals and confirmed by one study after another, the general public can scarcely contain its enthusiasm for said idea, right?

“Endorsements do not represent scientific evidence. Many of those promoting fluoridation rely heavily on a list of endorsements. However, the U.S. PHS first endorsed fluoridation in 1950, before one single trial had been completed and before any significant health studies had been published. Many other endorsements swiftly followed with little evidence of any scientific rational for doing so. The continued use of these endorsements has more to do with political science than medical science” (1). As for the studies supposedly supporting fluoridation, we only need to take into consideration the conclusions of the York Review to see that this notion is severely flawed. The Review’s authors categorically stated, “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide” (2).

Well, no, apparently not. The city of Sheridan’s attempt to fluoridate the municipal water supply is being stonewalled by Clean Water Sheridan, a determined group of holdouts who base their claim on a vote held more than half a century ago.

Clean Water Sheridan is certainly not alone. They are joined by most of the Western world (3) and many other communities in the US (4). Hence, many of the great cities of the world do not fluoridate their drinking water (5).

It pains us to have to rebut the utter fiction that Clean Water Sheridan espouses. Because we must, however, we will start with the notion that fluoride poisons drinking water. Then we will address the specific case of Sheridan.

You may think you are rebutting the claims, but you are doing a very poor job so far.

The very name of the group insinuates that adding fluoride makes water unclean, which is an absolutely baseless assertion. This renewed push for fluoridation in Sheridan reopens the annals of Cold War history and hysteria. In the decades since the absurd alarmism of the Red Scare and the John Birch Society, the anti-fluoride conspiracies have become no less outlandish.

There is certainly nothing “clean” about the chemicals used to fluoridate water (6), and as for the history of hysteria from non-credible whackos, this may be true of small segments, but it is only dug up when pro-fluoridationists cannot counter the arguments presented by the growing movement of well-informed citizens and professionals against fluoridation (7)(8). In fact, some of the earliest opponents of fluoridation were highly credible biochemists (9), and for very good reasons that are becoming more evident over time (10)(11).

In certain quarters, fluoridation is viewed with deep-rooted suspicion. It is even paired with the similarly disproved allegations of “chemtrails” to feed the fantasy that the government is deviously plotting to poison the citizenry.

It is common for the extremists of the pro-fluoridation movement to associate informed fluoride opposition with conspiracy theories, so they don’t have to properly address the key arguments against fluoridation (12).

We could understand the susceptibility to such quackery if we lived in an unscientific society with no understanding of the realities of public health. But in a country that has an unmatched infrastructure for providing sound medical information from coast to coast, fluoridation should need no defender. Its benefits ought to speak for themselves.

Perhaps the benefits should speak for themselves, if we all lived in the fantasy world of pro-fluoridation whackoism – but in reality – the evidence of “benefit” is shoddy at best (13)(14)(15).

Fluoride is an ion of fluorine. In its elemental form, fluorine is indeed highly toxic. Soluble fluorides have some toxicity as well. Yet in appropriate doses, fluoride strengthens teeth and wards off tooth decay in human beings. That’s why fluoride is added to toothpaste.

Fluoride added to toothpaste is applied topically and then discarded, not swallowed, as happens when fluoride is added to drinking water. Pro-fluoridation extremists take great pleasure from confusing the issues of topical vs systemic fluoride (16)(17).

The widespread introduction of fluoridated water beginning in the late 1940s is now hailed as one of the 10 greatest health achievements of the 20th century.

“Not a day goes by without someone in the world citing the CDC’s statement that fluoridation is “One of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th Century”. Those that cite this probably have no idea how incredibly poor the analysis was that supported this statement. The report was not externally peer reviewed, was six years out of date on health studies and the graphical evidence it offered to support the effectiveness of fluoridation was laughable and easily refuted” (18). It is always comical when this “10 greatest” crap (19) is extracted from the intellectual fluoridation sludge by butt-sniffing reporters and editors, desperate to appease their fluoridation puppet masters.

Among the great contradictions in medicine is the fact that a substance can be both poisonous and beneficial. Some toxins that are potent enough to kill are also potent enough to heal. The difference is in the dosage. When administered by qualified professionals, the proper dose of an otherwise terrible poison can seemingly work miracles.

This is true. Take Warfarin for example (20). However, when fluoride chemicals are added to drinking water to treat the human body, they are not being administered and overseen by qualified medical professionals, and no one is controlling the direct dose via drinking water (21), nor the total daily exposure (22)(23).

Tooth decay is one of the most common chronic illnesses in the world, and it can prove a major hindrance to childhood development. Youngsters who spend schooldays suffering through the pain of cavities and dental abscesses are hardly in optimal physical condition to learn and succeed in the classroom. For a minuscule cost, fluoridation offers families of all social and economic circumstances the gift of healthy teeth.

Sheridan started fluoridating its water in 1950, making it one of the first cities in the country to do so. But in 1953, a referendum was held, and voters said no to fluoridation by a ratio of almost 3-to-1, to the detriment of their own teeth. After abandoning its fluoridation program following that election, Sheridan now wants to revive it.

Food for thought: “Sweden rejected fluoridation in the 1970s… Our children have not suffered greater tooth decay, as World Health Organization figures attest, and in turn our citizens have not borne the other hazards fluoride may cause” (25).

The city says the 1953 ballot measure was merely an advisory vote that did not obligate Sheridan to end fluoridation. Clean Water Sheridan doesn’t see it that way. Even if that position has merit, we think that an election result from the time of the Eisenhower administration has been rendered obsolete. The voters in that distant election were the voice of 1953 Sheridan, not 2014 Sheridan. Times and circumstances have changed.

Yes, that’s correct. We now have the benefit of hindsight to put the fluoridation fraud in its proper historical context (26).

Clean Water Sheridan has dropped its plans to sue, opting for a signature drive instead. “We’re treading water right now,” group member Erin Adams said. What an apt choice of expressions. We hope this idea is sunk, never to resurface again.

This medical doctor, Andy Oakes-Lottridge, insults your intelligence when he asserts that, “adding fluoride in the water is a simple no-brainer”. As a medical professional, he should be ashamed of himself for suggesting that you do to everyone what he can legally do to no one – i.e. force a treatment. In fact, if he did so, he could be charged with assault or battery; or become the subject of a negligence claim, or a complaint of professional misconduct.

Dr. Oakes-Lottridge claims, “there is a 20-40 percent reduction in cavities, a statistical result that has been demonstrated in multiple scientific studies done over the last 50 years,” when in fact such percentages are regularly used to inflate the supposed ‘benefits’ of fluoridation (really amounting to nothing at all in a practical sense). Furthermore, he neglects to mention that after decades of fluoridation, no “reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide” was to be found by the York Review.

Oakes-Lottridge again insults your intelligence by saying, “it was in the early 1900s in the American Southwest that fluoride in the water was first identified as greatly reducing dental decay,” yet failing to acknowledge that the early fluoridation trials,“are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude.”

The good doctor wants you to note the fact that, “nationwide, between 60-80 percent of the U.S. population drinks fluoridated water” – like that means something special! If he were honest, he would also mention to you that whilst the majority of the US is fluoridated, the majority of the developed world is not (including many of the world’s great cities). Either way, in the US the tide is turning against fluoridation as more communities awaken to the fraud.

The doctor then presents a rather embarrassing proposition to you – obviously hoping you do not know any better – arguing that, “the most important time for fluoride’s effects is when the teeth are developing and coming in during childhood” – which is a total crock and is based on a well-debunked original pro-fluoridation belief surrounding systemic fluoride. It is now accepted that fluoride should only be applied topically, which raises the patently absurd notion that water fluoridation delivers a topical treatment systemically, equivalent to drinking sunscreen to prevent sunburn.

Dr. Oakes-Lottridge also wants you to be sucked in by the following statement, “Dental cavities disproportionately affect the children and the poor… if fluoride is removed from the water in Lee County, those most in need will be the least likely to participate in the political process or be able to afford fluoride supplementation.” What he is ultimately suggesting is that water fluoridation reduces inequalities in dental health, but what is his evidence for such a suggestion? Well, as it turns out, the evidence for this is crap at best. According to the York Review, “the evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health [is] of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable” – a point highlighted by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen.

Dr. Oakes-Lottridge wants you to focus on concentration rather than dose, when he says, “the optimal concentration of fluoride is 0.7 to 1.2 parts per million”. Firstly, “water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L is not adequate to protect against known or anticipated adverse effects and does not allow an adequate margin of safety to protect young children, people with high water consumption, people with kidney disease (resulting in reduced excretion of fluoride), and other potentially sensitive population subgroups”; i.e. the inherent lack of dosage control begs serious questions regarding margin of safety. And secondly, the molecular mechanisms of fluoride toxicity are of growing concern (even at supposed ‘low’ doses).

He says, “more serious claims argue that fluoridation can result in lower intelligence levels or even cancer. Studies from Australia, Europe, and the Americas have failed to show any consistent basis for these claims.” This is a rather ridiculous statement considering the fact that many key health studies have not been conducted in fluoridating nations, even where serious health issues may be concerned.

Ken is at it again. This time, he wants you to believe that human breast milk is fluoride-deficient [1].

As with all Parrots, mindless repetition is a given. Therefore, it’s probably not worth the effort of rebutting Ken’s silliness from scratch, at least in this case, since we have already covered the matter of infant exposure.

As such, we invite readers to re-visit our August 6, 2013 post titled, ‘Infant Exposure: The Great Gamble’ [2].

1. “Fluoridation’s benefits–to both children and adults–are supported by thousands of scientific studies.”

It’s interesting to note that when the York Review examined these numerous studies, the panel concluded as follows: “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide” [1]. Barrett conveniently leaves out this ‘quality of evidence’ [2] problem, which is a typical ploy by pro-fluoridation propaganda merchants, as pointed out by Connett, Beck & Micklem (2010) [3].

2. “Even communities that have been fluoridated for many years are being targeted.”

Yes, many communities have proudly rejected fluoridation in fluoridating nations [4], and these communities therefore join the vast majority of the developed world [5] – including many of the world’s great cities [6] – in rejecting the practice of mass treatment [7] via drinking water.

3. “Instead of telling you that fluoride is found naturally in all water, they call it a “pollutant.” Instead of telling you that fluoride is an important nutrient, they call it a “poison.””

Toxic sludge captured from the pollution smokestacks of the phosphate fertiliser industry is added very unnaturally to drinking water. This is a plain fact any way you cut it [8]. And as for fluoride being an essential nutrient, the scientific evidence does not support such an assertion [9][10]. As for the ‘poison’ label, we refer the reader to our previous note titled, Debunking the ‘Warfarin Defense’ [11], which covers a number of key points.

4. “Instead of the big truth–that fluoridation is safe, effective, and economical–they tell the big lie and say it causes hundreds of ailments.”

We appeal to the discretion of the reader and thus refer them to the following research databases [12], and also to this discussion on the specific issue of margin of safety [13].

5. “The effects of fluoridated water have been studied for more than a hundred years.”

In March 2014, Dr Philippe Grandjean and Dr Philip Landrigan published Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity in The Lancet Neurology, where fluoride was cited as a developmental neurotoxicant. The anti-fluoridation movement swiftly picked up on the potential significance of the paper, and, as per usual, the pro-fluoridation lobby largely ignored or dismissed the research. In July 2014, Grandjean & Landrigan responded to critiques of the March paper, stating the following:

“We agree with Feldman that fluoride is important for children’s oral health. However, the fact that a trace element has beneficial effects at low doses in specific tissues does not negate the possibility that neurotoxicity might also be occurring, especially at increased levels of exposure. Indeed, concerns about fluoride toxicity were already raised by a National Research Council expert committee. Feldman describes the recent meta-analysis as selective and based on old, confounder-ridden studies. In support of her claims, she refers to two previous reports that reviewed some of the same studies, although without access to important background information. Feldman makes other serious errors—eg, by linking, without justification, a rise in population mean intelligent quotient (IQ) to the introduction of water fluoridation. Similarly, Gelinas and Allukian dispute the validity of previous studies on fluoride exposure and neurobehavioural deficits. We do not deny the importance of a dose-response relation, which has been a unifying concept in toxicology since the time of Paracelsus. However, as we emphasised in our Review, emerging evidence on developmental neurotoxicity makes it clear that the timing of exposure is also of great importance, especially during highly vulnerable windows of brain development. Due to the growing evidence on adverse effects, US authorities now recommend that fluoridation of community water should not exceed 0·7 mg/L.”

Perrot (2014) believes this reply to be “brief and rather flippant,” however, we here at AFAM – rarely seeing eye to eye with Perrot – disagree. The National Research Council expert committee did indeed say, in 2006, that “the possibility has been raised by the studies conducted in China that fluoride can lower intellectual abilities” and recommended further studies be conducted to clarify the matter. In fact, the committee made many more recommendations to clarify fluoride’s potential negative health effects; and regarding the new 0·7 mg/L concentration threshold – as noted by Grandjean & Landrigan (ibid) – this has been criticised by at least one NRC committee expert as being inadequate to protect against known or anticipated adverse effects of fluoride.

In light of Grandjean & Landrigan’s comment that, “the fact that a trace element has beneficial effects at low doses in specific tissues does not negate the possibility that neurotoxicity might also be occurring,” it would be wise to consider the following point made by Barbiera, Arreola-Mendozab & Del Razothat (2010):

“Until the 1990s, the toxicity of fluoride was largely ignored due to its “good reputation” for preventing caries via topical application and in dental toothpastes. However, in the last decade, interest in its undesirable effects has resurfaced due to the awareness that this element interacts with cellular systems even at low doses. In recent years, several investigations demonstrated that fluoride can induce oxidative stress and modulate intracellular redox homeostasis, lipid peroxidation and protein carbonyl content, as well as alter gene expression and cause apoptosis. Genes modulated by fluoride include those related to the stress response, metabolic enzymes, the cell cycle, cell–cell communications and signal transduction.”

Connett (2012) also makes the point that, “today, we know that fluoride interferes with many other biochemical molecules and processes in addition to interfering with enzymes.” He elaborates on the matter of potential developmental toxicity in this lecture.

In summary, the questions regarding fluoride’s potential negative effects are legion, whilst the evidence for the supposed benefits of artificial water fluoridation is weak at best. It is telling that the York Review (2000) concluded, “we were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide”. Therefore, no matter how religiously Perrot and his ilk attempt to wank off the promoters of fluoridation, the combination of poor evidence, fundamental toxicity questions, and, ultimately, serious queries regarding margin of safety, reveals the water fluoridation program to be nothing more than a scientific and ethical joke.

The following is a response to Ken’s comment, dated July 5, 2014, in which he refers to AFAM’s stance on water fluoridation vs other modes of fluoride delivery. As usual, Ken has pissed on a bush when he was apparently aiming for a tree, but we will at least try to set things straight…

Ken writes:

“It appears from afamildura’s response in the pingback above that he has come on board. Fluoride is safe and effective – his only problem is the mode of delivery. He objects to fluoridation of drinking water but is happy to accept fluoridation of salt and milk and fluoride dental treatments! Then why go to so much trouble to attempt to discredit fluoride in general?”

AFAM’s response:

1. Opposed to water fluoridation? Absolutely, Ken. Glad you figured this out at least. Supporting a mass treatment via public water supplies – where neither the dose nor the potential subtle health effects can adequately be controlled or monitored – is illogical, especially when one considers there are many other more targeted options available for preventing tooth decay that would be far less controversial.

2. Fluoride safe and effective? Ken, if you wish to stick to this propaganda line, that’s your business, but attributing the sentiment to us is beyond laughable. Time you visited our Basics page to get a grasp on the fact that we argue the exact opposite of this propaganda line.

3. Why don’t we argue against fluoridated dental products/treatments? Because they are not used to mass treat the population via drinking water supplies, hence they can be delivered to the right individuals at the right time for the right treatment – with free and full informed consent/individual choice. Not to mention, they are also applied topically, which is the way fluoride treatment, if to be delivered at all, should be delivered, not systemically.

4. Fluoridation of salt and milk and other systemic modes of delivery? Again, this is illogical and we’ve never actively supported such silly measures, because as we all now know, fluoride doesn’t need to be swallowed to be effective. However, if people are deluded enough to insist on deliberately consuming fluoridated products, then that is their choice. Just like if someone wants to jump off a cliff, that’s their choice and it’s not our job to stop them. All we can do is warn them of the potential consequences if they do. The difference between consuming fluoridated products of this nature and being exposed to fluoride treatment via drinking water, is that people can choose to take these products in controlled amounts/doses with the conscious choice to do so, whilst fluoridated drinking water increases our total fluoride exposure whether we like it or not. As clarified by the National Research Council:

“The major dietary source of fluoride for most people… is fluoridated municipal (community) drinking water, including water consumed directly, food and beverages prepared at home or in restaurants from municipal drinking water, and commercial beverages and processed foods originating from fluoridated municipalities.”

In other words, fluoridating drinking water contaminates many other products and therefore is an inherently ridiculous form of treatment delivery for the reasons stipulated above. But knowing you, Ken, you have difficulty understanding the basic concepts, so again, the main issues in such a context are margin of safety and individual informed consent. Treatment effectiveness (or lack thereof) as a sub-issue is important, but the former two issues take precedent – especially in light of evolving understandings of the molecular mechanisms of fluoride toxicity. Thus, we agree with Thiessen:

“Water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L is not adequate to protect against known or anticipated adverse effects and does not allow an adequate margin of safety to protect young children, people with high water consumption, people with kidney disease (resulting in reduced excretion of fluoride), and other potentially sensitive population subgroups.”

In summary:

Public water fluoridation is an obsolete concept; it is unethical, ineffective, and does not and cannot allow for the establishment of an adequate margin of safety. If people are idiotic and brainwashed enough to take fluoride supplements from the pharmacy or wherever and deliberately ingest them, then so be it. We have no issue with that, nor whether people want to apply fluoridated dental products topically. But when governments and councils force us all to be exposed to fluoride via drinking water, thus contaminating the food chain, without our consent and without adequate biomonitoring protocols in place, then they will meet resistance from us. Do you get it, Ken, finally?!?!!